Interestingly enough, a comment made in passing now constitutes “engagement”.
Now, if this constitutes “engagement” – fine, I’ll buy that. However, it was followed up with this:
I honestly don't know what you mean but given Jesus died and the wages of sin is death not eternal torment its not hard to see how CI is a better fit.
— The Hell Project (@TheHellProj) August 8, 2020
Again, fine. What does this tweet claim, however?
1) Jesus died (not contested by me).
2) The wages of sin is *death* (not contested by me)
3) That death is *not* eternal …
When Mr. Black objects against Mr. White that unconditional surrender to the authority of Scripture is irrational, then Mr. Grey nods approval and says that, of course, the “rational man” has a perfect right to test the credibility of Scripture by logic. When the Bible speaks of God’s sovereign election of some men to salvation this must mean something that fits in with his “rational nature.” When Mr. Black objects to Mr. White that unconditional surrender to Scripture is rationalistic, then Mr. Grey again nods approval and says that, of course, genuine human personality has a perfect right to test
Many of the podcasts we did previously still point to incorrect urls on the old domain. I’m going through a number of them and fixing incorrect references. They should all work later this am.…
Just a bit ago, I saw a video clip wherein JD Greear was said to have claimed “the Bible changed over time.” Given current controversy, I gave it a watch, and was shocked to discover him answering his interviewer’s question (billed in the caption as “Does the Bible change over time?”) “of course it does!”
Shock! Amaze! Horror!
Except… that is not what the clip actually said. What made me wonder was the kick up into high gear that his following words made – he started talking exceptionally fast – often a sign that you have an important point to …
As we mentioned previously, JD Greear, citing Jen Wilkin approvingly, claimed that God “whispers” about some sins, and “shouts” about others. Confusingly, just prior, he asserted that homosexuality was “one corruption among many” – a frequent theme was “is that equally depraved in your book?” He further cited that the Bible seems to “whisper” about sexual sins, in general. What we addressed last time was that the theme of Romans 1 was that sexual depravities are, in fact, a form of idolatry. Further, that this sort of idolatry was emblematic of God’s giving them over to a depraved …
Coming now to the knowledge that man in Paradise would have of God, we must notice first of all that there man would be able to reason correctly from nature to nature’s God. But the meaning of this fact should be taken in connection with what we have said when discussing the true theistic conception of physics. We may perhaps best bring out what we mean by saying that man could originally reason from nature to nature’s God by contrasting it to what is usually been meant by that statement. In the first place, when men say that we can
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
In this first clause a concession is made. For as it might very readily be objected, that the gospel is commonly held in contempt, if it be presented in so bare and abject a form, Paul of his own accord concedes this, but when he adds, that it is so in the estimation of them that perish, he intimates that no regard must be paid to their judgment. For who would choose to despise …
The rapidly changing landscape of supposed non-binary genders is dizzying to most of us – myself included. This isn’t an attempt to help you navigate that mindfield of pronouns – because in all likelihood, by the time you read this, it would have all changed anyway. Which pronouns they want us to use, or not use, is irrelevant in most ways. We’re being told that “misgendering” is now rude – more than rude, really – a cardinal sin of oppression. One of my sons, a high-school senior, was recently the subject of an “intervention” by his classmates for his refusal …
While listening to my pastor’s continuing exposition of 1 Peter 1 this morning, I was struck by the timeliness of the passage he used for a subject he didn’t directly address. His sermon was about personal holiness (which is, of course, the main thrust of the passage) – but I have been unable to leave verse 14 alone all afternoon. In the wake of the recent Revoice conference, it struck me that this passage wasn’t highlighted very often in responses. I believe it should, going forward. Here’s why.
1 Peter 1:13 has a “therefore”, so it behooves us to go …